Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

AQUI1614 M'. Aquillius (10) M'. f. M'. n.

Relationships

father of
? M'. Aquillius (11) M'. f. M'. n. (cos. 101) (AE) Expand

1995 1464

grandfather of
? -. Aquillius (not in RE) Florus (q. c. 70) (AE) Expand

1995 1464

Career

  • Praetor before 131 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • The latest date possible under the Lex Villia. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 739 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 129 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Cic. Rep. 1.14; ND 2.14; QF 3.5.1; Chr. 354 (Tuditano et Aquilino); Fast. Hyd. (Auditano et Anulio); Chr. Pasc. ({Gr}); Oros. 5.10.9; Cassiod.; Degrassi 126, 470f.; on Sempronius, Act. Tr. for 129; and on the filiation of Aquillius, Act. Tr. for 126. See also IGRP 4.262, and Passerini, Athenaeum 15 (1937) 252-283, the two copies, dated to this year, of the S.C. de agro Pergameno. To Sempronius were transferred the judicial functions of the Gracchan commission (App. BC 1.18-19), but he departed to campaign against the Iapydes, and returned to celebrate a triumph on Oct. 1 (Act. Tr., Degrassi 82f., 559; Liv. Per. 59; App. Illyr. 10; cf. CIL 1(2).2.652, 653; Plin. NH 3.129; Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 190). Aquillius succeeded Perperna in Asia, and proceeded with the pacification and organization of the province (CIL 1(2).2.646-651; decree of Bargylia, Holleaux, REA 21 [1919] 1-19 (republished by L. Robert in Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques 2.179-198); Strabo 14.1.38; Vell. 2.4.1; Iustin. 36.4.9-12; 37.1.1-2; 38.5.3; Flor. 1.35.7; Eutrop. 4.20; see 123, Tribunes of the Plebs, on the so-called Lex Aufeia). (Broughton MRR I)
    • See MRR 1.496-497, note 1. In this note I accepted Passerini's view that the date of the SC de agro Pergameno was 129 (for the text, see now Sherk, RDGE, no. 12, pp. 63-73) in the belief that the consuls mentioned in the fragments, one with a name ending in -nius and the other with a name ending in -illius, were colleagues in the same year and thus necessarily in 129, when M'. Aquillius (10) as consul was occupied in completing the pacification and the organization of the province of Asia (MRR 1.504). Passerini's date, based on the two copies of the SC, has been accepted by many scholars (see the list in Sherk, op. cit., and now in F. De Martino, "Il Senatus Consulto de Agro Pergameno," PP, fasc. 210, 1983, 161-190) but was rejected by Magie (RRAM 2.1025, note 25), who held that 129 was too soon for disputes with the publicans to require settlement and suggested that the one consul named in office (line 17) might be the younger Aquillius (11), Cos. 101. This view has found fresh support from H.. B. Mattingly, AJPh 93, 1972, 412-423, with arguments based mainly on the dates when formulae in the text began to be used, and a prosopographical study of the names of members of the commission preserved on the stones. While F. de Martino, in his recent valuable study cited above, shows that these are insufficient criteria, since the formulae do appear earlier than Mattingly thought, and in the absence of cognomina prosopographical arguments remain uncertain, he holds that, even though certainty seems impossible, the consulship of the younger Aquillius (101 B.C.) is the more probable date. The decision to be made is about what land is subject to collection of taxes by the publicans. It may be only land of the city of Pergamum, but the discovery of fragments of the SC as far north as Adramyttium and as far south as Smyrna suggests the need of a more general settlement applicable to a wider territory, rather than a smaller one, such as defining the limits of royal land, now become ager publicus, a possibility that would be more likely before the legislation of Gaius Gracchus. This view is supported also by the unusual size of the senatorial commission (fifty-five names are known). I am still inclined to think that the consuls mentioned in lines 9 and 17 could have been colleagues in the same year, but must agree that a date such as 101 is quite possible. Accordingly, the dating in MRR of the names of the members of the senatorial commission to 129 should be queried. Addendum. See now E. Badian, "Two Notes on Senatus Consulta concerning Pergamum" (LCM 11, 1986, 14-16), who identifies C. Coelius C. f. Aemilia (listed tenth in the consilium) with C. Coelius C. f. C. n. Caldus (12), Cos. 94. As this Coelius was a "new man" (Cic. De Or. 1.117; Comm. Pet. 11), this identification supports the later date proposed for the SC, 101 B.C. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proconsul 128 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Proconsul in Asia (Act. Tr. for 126). See 129, Consuls, and 126, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Proconsul 127 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Proconsul in Asia. See 129, Consuls, and 128-126, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Proconsul 126 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Proconsul in Asia, who returned to celebrate a triumph from Asia on November 11 (Act. Tr., Degrassi 82f., 559). With the aid of a senatorial commission of ten members he had organized the province of Asia (FOR 2.137; IGRP 4.752; Sall. Hist. 4.69 M; App. Mith. 15, and 57; and see 129, Consuls). He was accused of accepting bribes from Mithridates V of Pontus (Cic. Div. in Caec. 69; App. Mith. 57; BC 1.22). See 123, Tribunes of the Plebs, on the so-called Lex Aufeia. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Triumphator 126 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph ex Asia. MRR I.509, Itgenshorst no. 216, Rich no. 216. (Rich 2014)

< Back to results